Lina Bessonova et al. Restarting ADOX Film Production

[Martin B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 hours ago, logan2z said:

This has been discussed a lot online already, but it's not necessarily clear that shooting digital is less expensive than shooting film. 

Leaving Leica to the side for a second, used film cameras can be bought for next to nothing these days.  Even a good quality prosumer camera like a Nikon FM and a 50mm f2 Nikon lens can be had for about $150.  Even in the case of inflated Leica M film camera prices, an M3 or M2 can be had for under $2K.  A decent M10 or equivalent is going to cost you closer to $5K, although you could pick up a Sony or a Fuji for quite a bit less. 

How about depreciation of digital cameras?  For what you'd lose in depreciation of your digital camera over a few years you could probably pay for a lot of film/developing - especially if you develop the film yourself at home.  The film camera you buy today will - in the case of Leica at least - be worth more than you pay for it down the road. 

What about image editing software subscription costs (Photoshop, Lightroom, etc.) that you'll incur every month?  And the cost of computer hardware upgrades to keep that software running well?  How about a backup system for your photographs?  

Do you ever make prints of your photos?  Not much point shooting with state-of-the-art cameras and lenses only to post compressed versions of your photos on Facebook or Instagram.  So, you'll need to invest in a high-quality inkjet printer or pay a photo lab to print them for you.  The lab I've used for film developing in the past charges anywhere between $15 (low quality) and $45 (high quality) for an inkjet print on 11"x14" paper.  I can make a gelatin silver print in my own darkroom using very inexpensive equipment for about $2, which includes the cost of the high-quality fiber paper and chemistry.  Plus it's fun.

So yeah, you can go all-digital and avoid paying film costs, but do the math and go in with eyes wide open, you may find that you won't really be saving any money.

That goes off the original topic because I mentioned the (hopefully not occurring) example of film prices going through the roof. Couple points here as reply to your points raised which might have led to the wrong impression:

1. I agree that alternative 35 film cameras still can be obtained for a good value - I never questioned or raised this point. I also agree that new digital cameras have gone up in value (less quantity sold making an increased price for a new digital full-frame based one). You can shoot a lot of film for this kind of price. I have stopped buying new digital cameras since > 10 years and only buy used after the main value was depreciated. Last year I got a nearly mint M-E 240 for less than $2K which I plan to use for along time in parallel to older digital cameras I own and multiple film cameras (large, medium, and small format). 

2. I am not part of any subscription based PP software and won't be. I am still using my old PS CS6 and LR 5.5. I have moved since to the freeware Darktable replacing LR for the most part. As backup system I am using a 20 TB LaCie harddrive which I set up as 2x 10 TB mirror image. I am not storing images on any cloud-based system - I have Google Drive for free space but only use it for random cellphone photos I rarely take. So no cost for PP or storage in my case.

3. I have 4 enlargers (Beseler types) which I set up for printing from large, medium, and small negative sizes. I often make darkroom prints which I exhibit and hang in my own place. I also use the hybrid process called digital negative - using digital files and making silver gelatin prints from it. No need to lecture me about printing as you might be able to tell from this short paragraph. 

My point earlier was simply that I am not going for exorbitant film prices as mentioned. I believe there will be moderate/cheaper based film stocks for a long time to come which I will continue to be using (currently I am using Ilford B&W films which I roll myself from 100' rolls as mentioned earlier which brings the cost of 36-frame film roll down to about $4). 

[Martin B]

5 hours ago, Helge said:

As I mentioned, you might not have the technical background to understand the differences between a regular mass market like Smartphones, entertainment electronics or cars and a niche market like film and film cameras.

Even the increase in demand of the last years is far away from any sales volume of the high times >20 years ago.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Film sales did still drop after 2011, now increasing on that very low level.

A lot of companies use old, basically inherited machines (living on substance), which allows still low prices (on the expense of sustainability, machines don‘t live forever) new players on the other hand calculate full costs of ownership.

In addition a lot of manufacturing steps and knowhow is located only at a few companies, a lot others (especially smaller ones) have to purchase those services, like punching or as raw components.

Prices for a lot of base components and chemicals have increased over the last years, since a lot of those manufacturers stopped producing or went out of business, leaving a few who act almost as monopolistic suppliers.

Last but not least, there are almost no scalability effects reducing manufacturing costs. Most manufacturers produce film in big chunks, produced in a short time (due to manufacturing processes still designed in the good old days), put them to the freezer and sell it over years (a Fuji Film you purchase today as „fresh“ might’ve produced 6 years ago). So even higher increase rates as today won‘t generate significant cost reduction potential, since the processes stay exactly the same.

There is a very interesting interview with Mirko Böddecker, Adox from 2013. He stated basically that considering that film sales is about 1/1000 of what it was in the 80s, prices did stay exactly the same (corrected by inflation effects) but too low for any investments, causing a reduction of selection and making the business only profitable for bigger companies. Today we see exactly his predictions coming true, production cost increases and new companies coming in, both asking for higher prices.

No need to lecture me about industrial background - I have one and actually work there which is not your business. Therefore I know that you are simply putting out an agenda to promote specific film stock. Your graph only shows the decrease in demand until 2011 - it significantly started to be in demand starting about 2016 until now. I am not interested to continue discussing your agenda further since it becomes repetitive and we simply continue to disagree. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[250swb]

17 hours ago, Martin B said:

Nonsense. Film is much more in demand these days but you also admitted that more film is hitting the market. This should lead to lower and not higher prices! It is just that they all overprice (some more, some less). It's a niche market which dictates prices. Not paying a penny more for this than I have to. And if prices actually go to $10 per roll in general, I will all move digital.

What's that stuff they put into film? Sort of a sparkly glitter, ah, I remember, maybe you will too

https://www.bullionbypost.co.uk/silver-price/25-year-silver-price-history-pound-sterling-per-ounce/

[Helge]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Martin B:

No need to lecture me about industrial background - I have one and actually work there which is not your business. Therefore I know that you are simply putting out an agenda to promote specific film stock. Your graph only shows the decrease in demand until 2011 - it significantly started to be in demand starting about 2016 until now. I am not interested to continue discussing your agenda further since it becomes repetitive and we simply continue to disagree. 

That was no actual lecture 😉

But your level of accepting/understanding of basic facts of film production today and present sales volumes is leading to the impression that some explanation might be ok.

Film demand has increased today to a volume that is not significantly higher than 10 years ago, it mainly recovered.

However still 1000 times (and don’t take that value too forensic, a factor of 900 or 1100 doesn’t make a big difference) lower than it has been in the 80s, when the prices have been around the level you are expecting still today. You have to put this in your calculation of reasonable film prices you didn‘t disclose yet.

 

Edited September 5, 2021 by Helge

[Helge]

vor 23 Minuten schrieb 250swb:

What's that stuff they put into film? Sort of a sparkly glitter, ah, I remember, maybe you will too

https://www.bullionbypost.co.uk/silver-price/25-year-silver-price-history-pound-sterling-per-ounce/

Also all other chemicals needed for film manufacturing have more than significantly increased in prices.

[Martin B]

5 hours ago, 250swb said:

What's that stuff they put into film? Sort of a sparkly glitter, ah, I remember, maybe you will too

https://www.bullionbypost.co.uk/silver-price/25-year-silver-price-history-pound-sterling-per-ounce/

Actually much less silver is used in modern films than in older ones. All manufacturers are cutting cost there as much as possible. This is nothing new. 

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, Martin B said:

Actually much less silver is used in modern films than in older ones. All manufacturers are cutting cost there as much as possible. This is nothing new. 

But you are accusing film manufacturers of profiteering and while poor management in some of them may make it appear so the steady performer is Ilford. A roll of 35mm FP4 in 2005 was £2.30 average price, today it is £5.69. In the meantime we've had a financial crash and in raw figures silver has gone up 500% and a roll of FP4 has gone up 150% by 2021. But if you factor in inflation to the price of film it has only gone up 60% over it's 2005 price, so if silver had remained on a par a roll would today cost about £3.50. Considering the overall demand and price increase for the ingredients in film, such as the demand for gelatin in the Far East, and of course silver, and I don't think film manufacturers are profiteering in their niche market as you imply. They are increasing prices as their costs increase.

Edited September 6, 2021 by 250swb

[Matlock]

12 minutes ago, 250swb said:

But you are accusing film manufacturers of profiteering and while poor management in some of them may make it appear so the steady performer is Ilford. A roll of 35mm FP4 in 2005 was £2.30 average price, today it is £5.69. In the meantime we've had a financial crash and in raw figures silver has gone up 500% and a roll of FP4 has gone up 150% by 2001. But if you factor in inflation to the price of film it has only gone up 60% over it's 2005 price, so if silver had remained on a par a roll would today cost about £3.50. Considering the overall demand and price increase for the ingredients in film, such as the demand for gelatin in the Far East, and of course silver, and I don't think film manufacturers are profiteering in their niche market as you imply. They are increasing prices as their costs increase.

Well said. Also I have just looked at my 1971 Wallace Heaton Blue Book. A roll of FP4 was the equivalent of around £3.50 in todays figures.

[Martin B]

6 hours ago, 250swb said:

But you are accusing film manufacturers of profiteering and while poor management in some of them may make it appear so the steady performer is Ilford. A roll of 35mm FP4 in 2005 was £2.30 average price, today it is £5.69. In the meantime we've had a financial crash and in raw figures silver has gone up 500% and a roll of FP4 has gone up 150% by 2021. But if you factor in inflation to the price of film it has only gone up 60% over it's 2005 price, so if silver had remained on a par a roll would today cost about £3.50. Considering the overall demand and price increase for the ingredients in film, such as the demand for gelatin in the Far East, and of course silver, and I don't think film manufacturers are profiteering in their niche market as you imply. They are increasing prices as their costs increase.

I disagree. It is pure marketing and increasing profits for the manufacturers - because they can. I am working in an industry which does exactly the same to customers - increasing prices every so often to increase margins and profitability by making exactly the same. Many reasons are mentioned for price increases which are most of the time just excuses. Since all others are doing the same - without collusion - the customers are forced to pay the price. There are reasons to increase prices like raw material increases, inflation for example, but I find these not proportional to the adjusted price increases of products. Manufacturers in general are just waiting for reasons to crank up prices for consumers - look at all the supply issue excuses which drive up prices nearly everywhere from groceries to cars (where the latter with chips is a real issue). Same here with film - there are valid reasons when looking 16 years back in time (which is funny itself) why film prices like everything else went up. But c'on, it does not explain why film manufacturers crank up film prices from $6 per roll to $10-12! As I said earlier: simple reason is more demand, and they want to make money because people are stupid enough to buy overpriced film stock. 

[Helge]

That is just a pure assumption, nothing of your impression is fact based, rather the opposite is true - you received numerous facts that support reasons for significant price increases.

[logan2z]

1 hour ago, Martin B said:

I disagree. It is pure marketing and increasing profits for the manufacturers - because they can. I am working in an industry which does exactly the same to customers - increasing prices every so often to increase margins and profitability by making exactly the same. Many reasons are mentioned for price increases which are most of the time just excuses. Since all others are doing the same - without collusion - the customers are forced to pay the price. There are reasons to increase prices like raw material increases, inflation for example, but I find these not proportional to the adjusted price increases of products. Manufacturers in general are just waiting for reasons to crank up prices for consumers - look at all the supply issue excuses which drive up prices nearly everywhere from groceries to cars (where the latter with chips is a real issue). Same here with film - there are valid reasons when looking 16 years back in time (which is funny itself) why film prices like everything else went up. But c'on, it does not explain why film manufacturers crank up film prices from $6 per roll to $10-12! As I said earlier: simple reason is more demand, and they want to make money because people are stupid enough to buy overpriced film stock. 

A roll of Ilford HP5 or FP4 at my local shop is $6.99, Tri-X is $7.99.  Neither seems ridiculously expensive IMHO.

Photography is my hobby and hobbies cost money.  I probably only shoot about 30 rolls a year or less, so paying $200 (or $300-$400 as film prices increase) to enjoy my hobby is more than reasonable to me.  I probably waste that much every year on other crap that I don't enjoy as much.

You've got a substantial investment in camera gear.  I say go make the most of it and shoot lots of film!

[Helge]

vor 28 Minuten schrieb logan2z:

A roll of Ilford HP5 or FP4 at my local shop is $6.99, Tri-X is $7.99.  Neither seems ridiculously expensive IMHO.

Photography is my hobby and hobbies cost money.  I probably only shoot about 30 rolls a year or less, so paying $200 (or $300-$400 as film prices increase) to enjoy my hobby is more than reasonable to me.  I probably waste that much every year on other crap that I don't enjoy as much.

You've got a substantial investment in camera gear.  I say go make the most of it and shoot lots of film!

One of the best answers to Ebenezer Scrooge 😎

I fully agree 👍

[ianman]

5 hours ago, logan2z said:

A roll of Ilford HP5 or FP4 at my local shop is $6.99, Tri-X is $7.99.  Neither seems ridiculously expensive IMHO.

Indeed, that’s less compared to the prices here. HP5 is roughly $8 and Tri-X is a lot more at $10.60. I’m using Ilford PAN400 these days as I really like it and it’s quite cheap, about $5.70 per roll and cheaper in bulk. I’ve not done that yet but I did read somewhere that it’s not really a good idea as there is waste and a high risk of scratching the film.

I’ve still got a stock of old Acros but the new one is now $13.00, almost twice the price of the old Acros!

[Martin B]

Just bought 100' of both Delta 100 and 400 films for $105 each. I get about 23 rolls with 36-40 frames on each roll from experience. Brings down the price to $4.56 per roll. I have three Lloyd rollers and Kalt cassettes which I bought years ago and which all have paid off since, so I didn't take their investment cost into account (which wasn't much either at the time). I already use PanF+ 50 film as 100' roll. 

Before Ilford raised prices last year (and maybe even this year, I forgot), I was at about $2.50 per 36 frame roll of this kind of Ilford films (I used FP4+ and HP5+, too). 

Coming back to the original topic: why would I ever spend $9-12 per roll of commercial B&W film? The only reason I can think of is if this film brings something unique no other standard B&W film has and which I could use. So far I don't see it. 

If a self-rolled cassette of film would cost at some point $10, I am out of the film game forever. This is my personal upper limit no matter the circumstances. 

Edited September 6, 2021 by Martin B

[Martin B]

20 minutes ago, ianman said:

Indeed, that’s less compared to the prices here. HP5 is roughly $8 and Tri-X is a lot more at $10.60. I’m using Ilford PAN400 these days as I really like it and it’s quite cheap, about $5.70 per roll and cheaper in bulk. I’ve not done that yet but I did read somewhere that it’s not really a good idea as there is waste and a high risk of scratching the film.

I’ve still got a stock of old Acros but the new one is now $13.00, almost twice the price of the old Acros!

I have used about 10 times 100' film cartridges from which I always rolled film myself for 35 mm format. Not even once I suffered from scratched films by doing so. The only time I experienced scratched films was with a novel batch of Ferrania P30 films which I got for free from a friend of mine who signed up for the kickstarter but stopped using film all together afterwards. All films had horizontal scratch lines which were caused by early manufacturing. I contacted Ferrania, they admitted this issue and sent me replacement films - which had still the same issue. Since I haven't tried another Ferrania film even I am confident they likely solved the early on issues by now. 

I never tried Acros film. But I looked at pricing when I saw that Fuji revamps it as a new version - for a price in gold so to speak. I slopped this idea directly after seeing this. This is a good example what I said - ripoff which has only to minor amount to do with significantly increased manufacturing cost. On the other hand we need to admit that the price only stays at this stratospheric level because some are willing to pay this price. I am not one of them for sure and will never be. 

Edited September 6, 2021 by Martin B

[250swb]

16 hours ago, Martin B said:

I disagree. It is pure marketing and increasing profits for the manufacturers - because they can. I am working in an industry which does exactly the same to customers - increasing prices every so often to increase margins and profitability by making exactly the same.. 

Even in Communist China companies make profits and keep the profits unless declaring a dividend (which then goes to the Government). I doubt anything more radical would work because even if a company was state sponsored (and without the need to make profits) there would be no incentive to grow. So being a Capitalist I'm going to have top say I think you are wrong, profits are good for companies and the world isn't ready for anything resembling Gulag's of workers churning out ever worse products more and more inefficiently. 

[Helge]

I really do hope those companies make significant profit! Otherwise they would be out of business soon and there would be no analog film anymore. Why should someone produce films if he cannot live from what he is doing?

 

vor 9 Stunden schrieb Martin B:

Just bought 100' of both Delta 100 and 400 films for $105 each. I get about 23 rolls with 36-40 frames on each roll from experience. Brings down the price to $4.56 per roll. I have three Lloyd rollers and Kalt cassettes which I bought years ago and which all have paid off since, so I didn't take their investment cost into account (which wasn't much either at the time). I already use PanF+ 50 film as 100' roll. 

Before Ilford raised prices last year (and maybe even this year, I forgot), I was at about $2.50 per 36 frame roll of this kind of Ilford films (I used FP4+ and HP5+, too). 

...

The "IKEA" effect, you do put (or you rather don't) your own time's value in the equation. Yes sure, you can do that, but this comparison falls short. Others who do not have that free time at there hand or who would rather use the film instead of producing parts of it just pay for that. You also re-use probably the cartridges, which all others have to pay for.

IKEA has discovered long time ago that their furniture suddenly becomes competitive if they transfer a (less beneficial) part of the value chain to the final customer by just adding an Allen wrench to the components and let them mounting it.

vor 9 Stunden schrieb Martin B:

I have used about 10 times 100' film cartridges from which I always rolled film myself for 35 mm format. Not even once I suffered from scratched films by doing so. The only time I experienced scratched films was with a novel batch of Ferrania P30 films which I got for free from a friend of mine who signed up for the kickstarter but stopped using film all together afterwards. All films had horizontal scratch lines which were caused by early manufacturing. I contacted Ferrania, they admitted this issue and sent me replacement films - which had still the same issue. Since I haven't tried another Ferrania film even I am confident they likely solved the early on issues by now. 

...

Ferrania, another bad and good example at the same time. Ferrania was completely out of business for a long time when some old buddies discovered that they can get some money from the Italian state (and eventually from the EU) in order to revive the business. They promised basically everything (all kind of film types incl. B&W, color negative and reversal, formats like 35, 120, 127 and Super 8 etc.) and started a kickstarter initiative at the same time. A lot of people gave them a lot of money in order to receive films that have been missing at that time (like Super8 color reversal, some others as well), they even announced reasonable prices like i.e. <40€ for an S8 cartridge. They "saved" some of the old machines and continuously "updated" the kickstarter community with very promising stories about chemical and mechanical process development they allegedly did. At the end they had nothing available than a scratched and mediocre B&W film the P30 which they gave away as a lame compensation instead of all the 35mm, 120 or S8 color reversal films kickstarters had signed-off for.

The story proves impressively that its is not that simple and cheap to start a film production, that is requires more than significant investments, experienced (and expensive) staff and massive know how. Ferrania only came this far (which was still very short) by getting external money from the state and the community for free and they inherited a lot of old stuff, virtually for free.

During this long period Kodak came out with the Ektachrome 100D again, which is now ~16€/35mm cartridge and ~55€/S8 cartridge, most probably in your eyes a immoral request, in reality however necessary to stay in business by making money.

vor 9 Stunden schrieb Martin B:

...

I never tried Acros film. But I looked at pricing when I saw that Fuji revamps it as a new version - for a price in gold so to speak. I slopped this idea directly after seeing this. This is a good example what I said - ripoff which has only to minor amount to do with significantly increased manufacturing cost. On the other hand we need to admit that the price only stays at this stratospheric level because some are willing to pay this price. I am not one of them for sure and will never be. 

You probably know that Fuji did cross subsidize the analog business from other areas which might not to be possible anymore after the one board member who's pet project analog was left. So now you have to pay for what you get. But you are highly welcome to share your insights about the real cost structure behind Fuji's film production,

Edited September 7, 2021 by Helge

[Matlock]

1 hour ago, Helge said:

I really do hope those companies make significant profit! Otherwise they would be out of business soon and there would be no analog film anymore. Why should someone produce films if he cannot live from what he is doing?

 

The "IKEA" effect, you do put (or you rather don't) your own time's value in the equation. Yes sure, you can do that, but this comparison falls short. Others who do not have that free time at there hand or who would rather use the film instead of producing parts of it just pay for that. You also re-use probably the cartridges, which all others have to pay for.

IKEA has discovered long time ago that their furniture suddenly becomes competitive if they transfer a (less beneficial) part of the value chain to the final customer by just adding an Allen wrench to the components and let them mounting it.

Ferrania, another bad and good example at the same time. Ferrania was completely out of business for a long time when some old buddies discovered that they can get some money from the Italian state (and eventually from the EU) in order to revive the business. They promised basically everything (all kind of film types incl. B&W, color negative and reversal, formats like 35, 120, 127 and Super 8 etc.) and started a kickstarter initiative at the same time. A lot of people gave them a lot of money in order to receive films that have been missing at that time (like Super8 color reversal, some others as well), they even announced reasonable prices like i.e. <40€ for an S8 cartridge. They "saved" some of the old machines and continuously "updated" the kickstarter community with very promising stories about chemical and mechanical process development they allegedly did. At the end they had nothing available than a scratched and mediocre B&W film the P30 which they gave away as a lame compensation instead of all the 35mm, 120 or S8 color reversal films kickstarters had signed-off for.

The story proves impressively that its is not that simple and cheap to start a film production, that is requires more than significant investments, experienced (and expensive) staff and massive know how. Ferrania only came this far (which was still very short) by getting external money from the state and the community for free and they inherited a lot of old stuff, virtually for free.

During this long period Kodak came out with the Ektachrome 100D again, which is now ~16€/35mm cartridge and ~55€/S8 cartridge, most probably in your eyes a immoral request, in reality however necessary to stay in business by making money.

You probably know that Fuji did cross subsidize the analog business from other areas which might not to be possible anymore after the one board member who's pet project analog was left. So now you have to pay for what you get. But you are highly welcome to share your insights about the real cost structure behind Fuji's film production,

Well said. but I fear that you are banging on an open door as most dedicated film users already subscribe to your views. However there is one person who is not prepared to change his views. The rest of us will happily pay what is still a realistic price to pursue our hobby.

[Helge]

I agree with you regards the active users here, however there might be numerous readers of unknown opinion…

However I think all facts are on the table, Scrooge is not putting any on the side so.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ianman]

2 hours ago, Helge said:

The "IKEA" effect, you do put (or you rather don't) your own time's value in the equation. Yes sure, you can do that, but this comparison falls short. Others who do not have that free time at there hand or who would rather use the film instead of producing parts of it just pay for that. You also re-use probably the cartridges, which all others have to pay for.

I’m not entirely sure what you are getting at here. Are you criticising people who buy film in bulk and reuse (instead of creating yet more plastic waste) cartridges?

if this is the case why stop there? Why not also have a go at people who develop and print themselves? Or go even further and ban everyone who takes a picture who are not professional photographers because they take business away. Your arguments on the other issues have some value but unless I have completely misunderstood, this one is just ludicrous. Going down that path you may as well forbid anyone doing just about anything.